On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 07:25 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> Subrata Modak wrote:
> >>Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >>
> >>>Matt Helsley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
>
>
>
> >+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.
Subrata Modak wrote:
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Matt Helsley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
+
It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
maximum ;). A better name migh
> Nadia Derbey wrote:
> > Matt Helsley wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> +#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
> >>> +
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
>
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Matt Helsley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
+
It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
maximum ;). A better name might better document what t
Matt Helsley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
+
It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is
actually try
Matt Helsley wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
+
It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is
actually try
> Subrata Modak wrote:
> >>Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >>
> >>>Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> >[PATCH 01/08]
> >
> >This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of
> >lowmem.
> >
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> +#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
> +
It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is
actually trying to do.
One ques
Subrata Modak wrote:
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH 01/08]
This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of
lowmem.
msg_ctlmni is now set to make the message queues occupy 1/32 of the
availa
> Nadia Derbey wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> [PATCH 01/08]
> >>>
> >>> This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of
> >>> lowmem.
> >>> msg_ctlmni is now set to make the message queues occ
Nadia Derbey wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH 01/08]
This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of
lowmem.
msg_ctlmni is now set to make the message queues occupy 1/32 of the
available
lowmem.
Some cleani
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH 01/08]
This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of lowmem.
msg_ctlmni is now set to make the message queues occupy 1/32 of the available
lowmem.
Some cleaning has also been done for
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:16:47 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [PATCH 01/08]
>
> This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of lowmem.
> msg_ctlmni is now set to make the message queues occupy 1/32 of the available
> lowmem.
>
> Some cleaning has also been done for the MSGPOO
[PATCH 01/08]
This patch computes msg_ctlmni to make it scale with the amount of lowmem.
msg_ctlmni is now set to make the message queues occupy 1/32 of the available
lowmem.
Some cleaning has also been done for the MSGPOOL constant: the msgctl man page
says it's not used, but it also defines it
14 matches
Mail list logo